"To practice in every moment of thought is called the true nature. To be enlightened to this Dharma is the Dharma of prajñā, to cultivate this practice is the practice of prajñā. To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body.Good friends, ordinary people are buddhas, and the afflictions are bodhi. With a preceding moment of deluded thought, one was an ordinary person, but with a succeeding moment of enlightened thought, one is a buddha. To be attached to one’s sensory realms in a preceding moment of thought is affliction, but to transcend the realms in a succeeding moment of thought is bodhi." (Platform Sutra, ch. 2, tr. McRae)

Very possible given that capacity at level is very high that it become ripen instantly.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Bodhidharma [my translation]―I come to the East to transmit this clear knowing mind without constructing any dharma―

LastLegend wrote:Both will lead to Buddhahood. The only the difference is the time it takes to become Buddha.

How so? Chan is the school of sudden enlightenment (not gradual development on the bodhisattva path), and the Pure Land path has 100% guaranteed buddhahood in one lifetime.

If I remember correctly, in Mahayana teachings, Bodhisattvas have to go to Pure Lands to become Buddhas. Or they might be "stucked" just like Arahants are stucked in Nirvana until they wish to go to Pure Lands.

I have learned that in the 52 stages of a Bodhisattva's path to become Buddha, being reborn to a Pure Land is an excellently convenient way to make the final step to Buddhahood. However, and I am merely using common human logic here, surely there must be Bodhisattva that made it to Buddhahood at the time where there are no Pure Lands? Now of course, I am applying my concept of time which is bound to be flawed as I am an ordinary human. Perhaps once a Buddha has created a Pure Land it becomes available to even those in the past...

I'm thinking alout here... If that is indeed the case, we can actually seek to be reborn in a Pure Land that has not been created yet, but will be created eventually and made available retrospectively. Because we are all future Buddha, does that mean you can seek to be reborn in the Pure Land that will be created by any one?

Why not seek to be reborn in your own Pure Land, one that you will create when you have become a Buddha?

Perhaps that Pure Land is already in existence; you have just lost sight and sense of it.

This discussion is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit. The Buddha taught 84000 ways, meaning there is a path in Buddhism for every practitioner. They are all the same yet manifest with different faces, just as we are all humans but do not look alike. Pure Land Buddhism, whether classic or not, is a path relying on the vows made by Amitabha Buddha when he was the Bodhisattva Dharmakaya. His Pureland is described in those vows. This path was taught by Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha (the Buddha) among many others. Whether a Bodhisattva determines to have a Pureland would depend on the Bodhisattva. The ability to manifest a Pureland is within the powers of an advanced, say 10th level Bodhisattva who is so indistinguishable from a Buddha that we know them to be Bodhisattvas only because they are still within the vow not to attain enlightenment until all sentient beings are liberated. Although many people seem to view Pure Land as the easy path to enlightenment, relying as it does on other power or the vow of Amitabha as Dharmakaya that all who recite his name and mean it and rely on his vow with conviction will be reborn in Sukhavati, there is nothing easy about the constant 24/7 recitation of his name. It takes diligence. It takes true trustful confidence that the vow took place and will be fulfilled. The nembutsu itself can indeed be viewed either as directed to another out there, or as the manifestation in sound of one's own enlightened nature, or both.Zen is called the sudden path because of the sudden experience of awakening, but within Zen there are many traditions, and some are also Pure Land. Zen awakenings are not necessarily complete and full enlightenment as a Buddha - annutara samyak sambodhi. Moreover, the sudden aspect may be referring both to the sudden happening and to it being in the lifetime in which it occurs, which does not address the myriad of lifetimes preceding it. To contend one tradition of Buddhism is better than another is pride, which is based in all sorts of aspects of dukkha, but the most obvious is self-cherishing. No Buddhist path is better than any other path. The question is which path suits the practitioner best. Additionally, a thorough grounding in Buddhist doctrine is essential for determining which path or combination of paths is most appropriate for a practitioner, being aware that with all things impermanent this too may change.As to whether you can be reborn in your own Pure Land - well, if everything is mind, why not? It would require a great grounding in Buddhist doctrine, not the least of which is emptiness, shunyata, and how it affects time and space, and of course such a vow is more likely to be fulfilled when you have the abilities of an advanced Bodhisattva, but at that point why be reborn in a place of your creating when your can simply manifest that place in which to be? Which of course does tie in with the Bardo realm. None of this is accomplished without practice, practice, practice or meditation, meditation, meditation. What we do in the Bardo is greatly influenced by how we practiced while in this precious human life.

A time when there were no buddha-lands is not really possible. There is no beginning of life in Buddhism, there is no beginning of buddhas either. But being born in a buddha-land as a part of one's progress on the bodhisattva path is not a requirement, although since bodhisattvas start their career under a buddha and are guided by buddhas, buddha-lands and bodhisattvas go together quire well.

The Tusita is a heaven in the realm of desire, not a buddha-land/pure land (the words are synonyms generally).

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

A time when there were no buddha-lands is not really possible. There is no beginning of life in Buddhism, there is no beginning of buddhas either. But being born in a buddha-land as a part of one's progress on the bodhisattva path is not a requirement, although since bodhisattvas start their career under a buddha and are guided by buddhas, buddha-lands and bodhisattvas go together quire well.

The Tusita is a heaven in the realm of desire, not a buddha-land/pure land (the words are synonyms generally).

Thanks for the reply, Astus. From what I have learned, Maitreya Bodhisattva is currently residing in an area within Tushita and that area is a pure land, according to:

Does that sutra state anywhere specifically that it's a pure land or buddha land?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.